Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections Claims 1-14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 includes a typographical error “wherein the guiding face is a configured to avoid” appears improper and includes an additional “a”. Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1 -11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6106903 by Upadhya taken collectively with JP 2002151420, hereinafter JP 420. Claim 1: Upadhya discloses a gas shield protection device for thermal spraying, comprising: a spraying member including a nozzle and a shield body disposed on the nozzle(66), wherein the nozzle is configured to align with one of a plurality of workpieces on a worktable (see e.g. Figure 4 and accompanying text), wherein the shield body includes an end face having a through-hole aligned with an opening of the nozzle, wherein a first gas ejection portion is disposed around the through-hole and includes at least one gas ejection port located on the end face (see e.g. Figure 4 and accompanying text), wherein the first gas ejection portion includes at least one first guiding protrusion located between the at least one gas ejection port and the through-hole (see extension in Figure 4), wherein the at least one guiding protrusion has a guiding face located on a side of the at least one guiding protrusion facing the at least one gas ejection port (66), wherein the guiding face is configured to avoid gas currents ejected from the first gas ejection portion from overlapping with a path of a spray material ejected from the opening of the nozzle (see Figure 4, overlapping of certain currents does not occur) Upadhya discloses a plasma thermal spraying and argon shrouded thermal spraying so as to control oxidation (“ A nonreactive gas that prevents oxidation “); however, fails to disclose the claimed gas shield. However, JP 420, also in the art of plasma thermal spraying discloses including a gas shield generation device configured to align with the worktable (Figure 3 and accompanying text), wherein the gas shield generation device includes a housing and a second gas ejection portion (see Figure 4 and accompanying text, see also Figure 3), wherein the housing has a gas passageway therein, wherein the second gas ejection portion has at least one gas ejection port intercommunicating with the gas passageway, wherein the at least one gas ejection port is configured to face the plurality of workpieces (see e.g. Figure 3 in combination with figure 4), such that an area of a gas shield ejected from the at least one gas ejection port of the second gas ejection portion covers the plurality of workpieces (this requirement is intended use and the structure of the combination of prior art references can be operated on and shield a plurality of substrates as claimed) . It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim 2: JP 420 discloses using a plurality of gas ejection ports for the gas shrouding that surround the through - hole and spaced apart from each other (see Figure 4) and therefore it would have been obvious to use a plurality of ejection holes as claimed to provide the gas shroud. Claim 3: Upadhya discloses a diffusion angle of 90 (see Figure 3) and JP 420 discloses each of the plurality of gas ejection ports of the first gas ejection portion has a flow passage, wherein each flow passage of the first gas ejection portion has a diffusion angle toward a respective gas ejection port, and wherein the diffusion angle is 90 degrees (see Figure 3 relative to diffusion angle). Claim 4: Upadhya discloses an annular gas ejection port around the through hole (see Figure 4 and accompanying text) and JP 420 discloses the concentric opening (see e.g. chamber with openings 13 is an annular gas ejection port itself) and each opening is circular around the through-hole (or annular opening of each individual hole). Claim 5 : Upadhya discloses a protruding distance of the at least one guiding protrusion protruding from the end face (see Figure 4 and accompanying text, where the protrusion is e xtending past the orifice); however, fails to explicitly disclose the amount of extension. However, the amount of extension would be a result effective variable, directly affecting the argon shroud and its ability to prevent oxidation and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have determined the optimum extension amount through routine experimentation to achieve the desired shroud flow. Claim 6: Upadhya discloses the guiding face extends perpendicularly to the at least one gas ejection port of the first gas ejection portion (see e.g. Figure 4). Claim 7: JP 420 discloses a guiding face that angles toward at least one ejection port (See e.g. Figure 3, where chamber 10 includes an inclination angle) and the refore including an angle as claimed would have been obvious to control the flow of the gases in the shroud. Claim 8: JP 420 discloses the at least one gas ejection port of the second gas ejection portion includes a plurality of gas ejection ports spaced from each other (see Figure 4 and accompanying text) , and wherein two gas shields ejected from two adjacent gas ejection ports of the second gas ejection portion overlap with each other (initially this in intended use and would be met by JP 420 and additionally, such is taught by JP 420 at Figure 3, where overlap of the two would necessarily occur). Claim 9: JP 420 discloses a spacing between two adjacent gas ejection ports of the second gas ejection portion, such that a separation zone free of the gas shield is formed on the second gas ejection portion (see Figure 4). The exact amount of the spacing would have determined by one of ordinary skill in the art to provide zone for deposition and without shroud would have been obvious through design incentives to provide the desired area for deposition. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the spacing , since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Claim 10: JP 420 discloses each of the plurality of gas ejection ports of the second gas ejection portion has a flow passage, wherein each flow passage of the second gas ejection portion has a diffusion angle toward the gas ejection port of the second gas ejection portion, and wherein the diffusion angle is 90 degrees (see Figure 3, flow passage made by chamber). Claim 11: JP 420 discloses the at least one gas ejection port of the second gas ejection portion includes a gas ejection port forming an annular opening configured to form a continuous gas shield for covering the plurality of workpieces (see e.g. Figure 3, wherein the annular opening exists at the gas shield due to the extensions to the chamber, see annotated figure) . Claim 13: JP 420 discloses the worktable includes a conveying unit configured to move the plurality of workpieces along a predetermined path, wherein the conveying unit includes a plurality of fixing portions configured to position the plurality of workpieces (fixing portions are not defined and can reasonably be considered “41”, “42” and “43” in figure 3), wherein the plurality of fixing portions is aligned with the second gas ejection portion, such that the gas shield ejected by the second gas ejection portion covers the predetermined path (see e.g. Figure 3 above). Claim(s) 9, 11- 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhya taken collectively with JP 420 and further with US Patent Application Publication 20190292661 by Lee. Claims 9, 11-12: Upadhya taken collectively with JP 420 discloses all that is taught above and discloses a thermal spraying with an inert gas supplied; however, fails to disclose the ejection protion forms a C shaped as claimed. However, Lee, also in the art of thermal spraying and supplying inert gas (see Figure 3 and accompanying text) and discloses the use of a varying opening shaped, including what can reasonably be considered C shaped (see Figure 4B) or continuous opening (see Figure 4A) and therefore taking the reference collectively it would have been obvious to have supplied the inert gas using an opening in the shape as claimed, as such are well known shaped for orifices for supplying inert gas in the art of thermal spraying. As for the distance and spacing between opposing ends, as evidenced by Figure 4A and 4B and discloses at 0040 related to the determination of the shape, size , number of openings and spacing , the size/shape/number /spacing of the openings would be recognized as a design choice, specifically within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide inert gas to the thermal spraying device, as thus it would have been obvious to determine the distances of opposing ends, to provide the desired inert gas to the thermal spraying apparatus. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhya taken collectively with JP 420 and further with US Patent Application Publication 20100266780 by Lawrynowicz et al. Upadhya taken collectively with JP 420 discloses all that is taught above and discloses thermal spraying a moving substrate on a worktable; however, fails to discloses the claimed rotation and fixing portions around the rotating axis. However, Lawrynowicz, also in the art of thermal spraying substrate moving through a thermal spraying process (see abstract) and discloses using a workable with a rotating axis, wherein a conveying unit rotates and includes fixing portions that are arranged around circumference of the axis of rotation (see e.g. Figure 1 and Figure 2) and therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Upadhya taken collectively with JP 420 to use the conveying member as suggested by Lawrynowicz as such is taught as useable in a thermal spraying process. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2940 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Gordon Baldwin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-5166 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718